This
newsletter is unashamedly devoted to truth, genius and wisdom,
which, of course, makes it totally anachronistic and out-of-fashion. Some
people even go so far as to call it "medieval" in
nature. The truths that it points to are subtle,
profound and hard to discern. They aren't the sort of
truths that you can hold out in front of everyone, as you can a
scientific result or a mathematical proof. Rather,
they are like beautiful diamonds that are buried deep within the
mind. Much personal digging is required if you want to
cash in on this wonderful treasure. But sadly,
most people are too afraid to dig, lest their whole minds cave in. And
so this newsletter is really only for the courageous few. Let
the morons endlessly prattle on about how these inner diamonds
don't exist. It is their loss, not yours. Let
them revel in their poverty. What does it matter to
you? You are a fine young explorer of the spirit! May
you go all the way with your explorations. May you
succeed where others fear to tread!

The -[- symbol will return you to this
contents table from each major section.

Chapter
12

Arjuna

Those who in oneness worship thee as God immanent in all; and
those who worship the Transcendent, the Imperishable - Of these,
who are the best Yogis?

Krishna

Those who set their hearts on me
and ever in love worship me, and who have unshakable faith, these
I hold as the best Yogis.

But those who worship the Imperishable, the Infinite, the
Transcendent unmanifested; the Omnipresent, the Beyond all
thought, the Immutable, the Neverchanging, the Ever One;

Who have all the powers of their soul in harmony, and the same
loving mind for all; who find joy in the good of all beings -
they reach in truth my very self.

Yet greater is the toil of those whose minds are set on the
Transcendent, for the path of the Transcendent is hard for
mortals to attain.

But they for whom I am the End Supreme, who surrender all their
works to me, and who with pure love meditate on me and adore me -
these I very soon deliver from the ocean of death and life-in-death,
because they have set their heart on me.

Set thy heart on me alone, and give to me thy understanding: thou
shalt in truth live in me hereafter.

The man who has a good will for all, who is friendly and has
compassion; who has no thoughts of "I" or "mine",
whose peace is the same in pleasures and sorrows, and who is
forgiving;

This Yogi of union, ever full of my joy, whose soul is in harmony
and whose determination is strong; whose mind and inner vision
are set on me - this man loves me, and he is dear to me.

He whose peace is not shaken by others, and before whom other
people find peace, beyond excitement and anger and fear - he is
dear to me.

He who is free from vain expectations, who is pure, who is wise
and knows what to do, who in inner peace watches both sides, who
shakes not, who works for God and not for himself - this man
loves me, and he is dear to me.

He who feels neither excitement nor repulsion, who complains not
and lusts not for things; who is beyond good and evil, and who
has love - he is dear to me.

The man whose love is the same for his enemies or his friends,
whose soul is the same in honour or disgrace, who is beyond heat
or cold or pleasure or pain, who is free from the chains of
attachments;

Who is balanced in blame and in praise, whose soul is silent, who
is happy with whatever he has, whose home is not in this world,
and who has love - this man is dear to me.

But even dearer to me are those who have faith and love, and who
have me as their End Supreme: those who hear my words of Truth,
and who come to the waters of Everlasting Life.

Non Sum: Rock on, LD! You are a rare ray of
light in these darkened corridors.

Dan Rowden: Is it? How did you figure that? Oh,
don't tell me, you reasoned it out! You guys are a laugh a minute.

Of course, some people, many people in fact, are attached to mere
intellectual activity (e.g. Mensa types), but that is entirely
different from recognising the importance and, indeed, the
ultimate authority of reason with respect to philosophical
matters (or any act of mental discrimination for that matter).

Non Sum: "Nothing's more important than a
red wheelbarrow, glazed with rain water, surrounded by white
chickens." (William Carlos Williams, poet) I guess we all
have our ideas about what is 'muy importante'.

Dan Rowden: Importance, like value(s), is a
relative quality; however, as soon as one begins to consider what
is important, reason becomes necessary and therefore of great
importance.

Lone Deranger: It still remains that valuing reason
and logic over something else is based upon a binding attachhment
(at the lowest level, you would still be placing attachments on
the preference of results and efficiency over no results and
randomness). Of course, my position is that some binding
attachments are useful and needed, but I'd like to hear your
stance since you are against holding binding attachments.

David Quinn: Ideally, reason should be the last
attachment to give up. A wise person uses reason to disentangle
himself from all other attachments, and then, and only then, is
he in a position to let it drop.

The world does the precise opposite, of course - as soon as an
attachment is threatened, reason is always the first thing to go.

Lone Deranger: I see. That seems suitable enough an
answer - reason would be the last attachment to be dropped. But
is not the desire to release yourself from attachments also an
attachment and desire in and of itself? Is it not this "desire"
that all people have - that so many here seem to believe - that
is the cause of so many a problem on this ball of dirt we call
the Earth?

David Quinn: You would have to explain how the
desire to be free of attachments causes problems. I would have
thought the desire to protect attachments was the underlying
cause of most of humanity's problems. For example:

Rape - protecting an attachment to one's status within the eyes
of women. Etc.

Lone Deranger: Problem is, if one goes down this route
of thinking, then it all boils down to subjective personal
hedonistic preferences that drive the will to enlightenment, not
any sort of truths set in stone.

David Quinn: There is no conflict between the two.
The search for truth is indeed hedonistic, in the sense that it
is motivated by a desire for happiness and an escape from
suffering. But this doesn't invalidate the existence of truth in
any way. Not does it undermine the validity of the spiritual path
to truth.

Lone Deranger: Can one possibly make a rational
explanation of why problems and suffering are bad? Me thinks all
that can be created for rational explanation is simply "It...
it hurts, so it is bad!". All these choices derive from
nothing more than a dislike of personal sensations that bring
displeasure (hence a sort of masochistic pseudo-hedonism I
suppose..).

David Quinn: Agreed.

Lone Deranger: How better is one man for trying to
choose enlightenment to seek their escape from displeasure, than
is a man who walks on the more simple and efficient road of
having sex like a rabid bunny every second they get with anyone
they can, besides that one dresses their desires up in fancy
wrapping paper and the other uses honesty?

David Quinn: Even though both are motivated by
hedonism, there are major differences. The core difference is
that the enlightenment-seeker tries to conquer suffering through
heightened consciousness and reason, whereas the sex-addict does
it through distraction and forgetfulness - that is, by
diminishing his consciousness.

The major advantage of the former path is that, if the truth-seeker
is successful and becomes perfectly enlightened, then he conquers
suffering permanently and achieves a state of perfect sanity and
honesty. The sex-addict, on the other hand, can only block out
suffering temporarily, at best. He still remains insane and
ignorant in his mind and is vulnerable to further suffering -
which, in turn, makes him prone to committing further violence
and irrational behaviour in the future.

As to which of these paths is "better", this is up to
the individual to decide. If he happens to value truth and
honesty, then no doubt he would find the search for enlightenment
far more interesting and valuable than the practice of taking
constant refuge in sex.

You're right to call the desire to be free of all attachments an
attachment. But that doesn't automatically make it bad. One
cannot suddenly give up all attachments overnight. It's a long
process that initially involves becoming attached to "good"
attachments, such as reason, truth, the ideal of non-attachment,
etc. Later on, as one gets closer to perfection, these
attachments will themselves naturally fall away at the
appropriate time.

Lone Deranger: Then, all attachments are not bad then,
it is up to personal discretion... ;)

David Quinn: True. It all comes down to one's
personal values.

Lone Deranger: Why are the 'good' attachments good?
Why are good things good?

David Quinn: In the end, an attachment is "good"
if it helps your overall goal in life. If you value wisdom, then
an attachment to reason and truth is good. If you value instant
relief from boredom and pain, then an attachment to sex is
probably good.

(It should be noted, however, that there is a certain irony
involved in desiring sex to escape pain. For the very desire for
sex, or indeed for anything at all, actually creates pain. The
sex-addict seeks to escape from a pain of his own making.)

Non Sum: "Good attachments" is an
oxymoron. 'Time' has absolutely nothing to do with coming out
from time. It appears necessary to you to take time, since to
your view 'detachment' is a process, like that of mastering any
skill or art. But, this is not DQ becoming proficient in "enlightenment."
This is getting rid of DQ (the only attachment that counts), and
that can be done instantly by what Krishna calls "the sword
of discrimination." Just one heartfelt swipe of the sword,
and you've beheaded the 'attachment monster', i.e. DQ.

The following
discussion begins as an observation or two regarding free will
and determinism but soon "descends" into yet another
battle over the nature and significance of definitions and the
idea that one can ascribe universality to certain points of view.
It ends in the questioning of the very efficacy and power of
logic itself. These are such quintessentially important matters
that they deserve an airing as often as is possible. Without a
proper understanding of the basic nature of logic and of
definitions, philosophy simply cannot happen.........

Matt Gregory: If people are truly boundless, then their bodies are
completely inseparable from the environment. They need to breathe
and eat, etc. Their personalities and thoughts are formed from
their experiences, parents, etc. so their actions all have
determining factors, making us all empty robots.

Matthew Timpanelli: I'd hate to think this way but it seems as if destiny
does exist.

David Hodges: People are not passive, but active agents, and respond
to their environment, changing it. The environment you will be
exposed to at future times will depend in part on the decisions
you make now.

People are not fully determined by their environment, but in turn
help determine their environment, in a feedback loop. Over time,
the will of the individual is expressed; "programming"
can be transcended, if the decision is made (i.e., makes itself)
to move in that direction.

Matt Gregory: People make active decisions, but it's ultimately an
illusion. A person's decisions are based largely on his
experiences, his education, his physical composition, etc. What
it boils down to is causality, in that any decision a person
makes must be caused, uncaused or a mixture of the two. If it is
caused, then it will be fully determined by its causes. If it is
uncaused, then it would be random and have no causal connection
to anything. If it is partially caused and partially uncaused,
then the decision would be a combination of determination and
randomness. In any case, there is no way for a person to obtain
any real control over the decision making process.

People are not fully determined by their immediate environment,
but everything that is within a person ultimately comes from the
environment. The will is an illusion, an inescapable one due to
the fact that we cannot be aware of every single cause that goes
into our decisions, but an illusion nonetheless.

Matthew Timpanelli: This is really a world based on science, of course i
believe there are more factors that are unknown to us, perhaps
these factors dictate more than our science. This is a world of
chemical changes and events, the reasons for these chemical
events are unknown though.

Matt Gregory: How can the world be based on science, though? Science
is the study of the world, so the world must have come first with
its basis already established. And the reasons for anything are
unknown, because any reason for something must have reasons
behind it, and more reasons behind those, ad infinitum.

Matthew Timpanelli: Who is to say that we cannot recreate the universe with
our very existence?

Matt Gregory: We can create systems, but the universe can't be
created.

Matthew Timpanelli: Why not?

Matt Gregory: Well, assuming that "universe" is defined to
be "all there is" (and that's the definition I always
use for that term; not sure what definition you're thinking of)
it follows that there can be nothing to create it with, since
there can be nothing outside of it.

Matthew Timpanelli: I usually define it as all that is was and will be.

Matt Gregory: Works for me.

Matthew Timpanelli: The will be part leaves room for creation.

Matt Gregory: Well, when you define something, it's usually conducive
to keep your definition the same throughout the course of the
argument. If you define something to be a certain thing and then
start talking about only a part of that thing you have defined,
then you're actually talking about two different things. All
there is and was may create all there will be, but the universe
is all of these.

Matthew Timpanelli: I'm not making exceptions, im saying we cant be sure of
anything.

Matt Gregory: You've made an exception to your definition of "universe"
by saying that there can be something outside of it after
defining it in such a way that nothing can be outside out of it.
You're taking an impossible situation and talking about it as if
it were possible.

Matthew Timpanelli: Right, im not speaking of two things though, im just
saying that the universe can be created from within itself. Im
saying that for your theories to be correct something outside the
universe must exist, but you say nothing can exist outside the
universe. I dont believe anything can exist outside the universe.
Neither can you by simple definition.

Matt Gregory: The universe cannot be created because creation
requires (for example) time and space, yet time and space are
within the universe, so the universe is beyond time and space.

Matthew Timpanelli: Sure if you believe that there is only one fate for the
universe in the future? Even if there is but one fate can that
fate not be influenced by the consciousness the universe
contains?

Dan Rowden: The Universe will always be itself. That is not its
"fate", that is its nature. I don't think you've
stopped to consider what Matt G. is saying to you when he says
that the Universe is beyond time and space. "Fate" is a
meaningless term to apply to the Universe because the Universe contains
all fate; it is not bound by any kind of fate. It cannot be other
than what it is. It doesn't have options, it doesn't have a past
or a future. You are projecting the change and potential that
occurs in and for finite systems onto the non-finite Universe,
and that is not legitimate.

Matthew Timpanelli: We shall never know everything about the universe but
what appears to be true from our specific point of view.

Matt Gregory: Which is why I like philosophy because it's not
dependent upon a specific pov in terms of its validity.

Matthew Timpanelli: Of course its based on specific POV's, everything is.
Where there is consciousness there is a POV.

Matt Gregory: Some things are true for all pov's.

Matthew Timpanelli: Unless there is some higher consciousness or something
outside the universe that can never be proven IMO.

Matt Gregory: That's not possible, Matthew. You've stated that you
define "universe" as all that is, was, and will be.
You'll have to change your definition if you want to make
exceptions. It makes no difference if there is some higher
consciousness because, as you said earlier: "Where there is
consciousness there is a POV."

If there is a pov, then what is true for all
pov's remains true for that pov.

Matthew Timpanelli: Any theory is based on a POV even though its meant to
be free of them. You just simply cannot escape it. Matt Gregory: So is this not true for all pov's?

Matthew Timpanelli: That is simply what I see from my POV.

Matt Gregory: So what's the problem? You've made a statement, from
your own pov, about all pov's.

Matthew Timpanelli: Nothing is seperate from a POV, we've established that.
So how can something be valid based on this knowledge?

Matt Gregory: Because now that we know what a pov is, we can find
knowledge that cannot be falsified by any pov.

Matthew Timpanelli: How can we do that if all that we know is based on a
limited POV? mine different from yours, whose to say who's right
and who is wrong. That would take some sort of higher
consciousness which would contain their own POV. So its
impossible.

Matt Gregory: I just want to know if your statement is true or not.

Matthew Timpanelli: Certainly true from my perspective, but i dont believe
anything to be ultimately true. If your trying to say that i
contradict myself that is because one must adopt my theory to
disprove them. I think this technique is a way to understand
things better. It is an essential part of it.

It is not a study, it is a philosophy. People here seem to mix
the two together. We cannot seperate ourselves from the universe
so all our laws and such are based on our creation of the
universe. Our creation of logic, and laws and rules. We create a
base to study upon when the base is not really there, its is
contrived for us to relate to the empirical realm. What is really
there is unknown.

Matt Gregory: Throughout this thread, you've basically been making
the case that you're incapable of distinguishing between right
and wrong, which is fine, but you're extending that incapacity to
everyone else, which is not fine, because you lack the capacity
to do so, by your own admission. If you have the capacity, then
you should admit it, but then you'll have to admit that other
people might have that capacity as well, and I don't think you
want to do that.

Matthew Timpanelli: To say that I have the capacity to be true would
contradict my whole theory.

Matt Gregory: The fact is, a pov is only limited in an empirical
sense. It is not limited in a logical sense. Logic is not
crippled from having a pov. In fact, a pov (or to put it more
concretely, consciousness) is necessary for logic to even occur.

Matthew Timpanelli: You cannot just state something like that to be true
and leave no evidence of validity. Logic is a creation of our
understanding of the world, it is not something that is there. It
is something that we think is there.

Dan Rowden: Logic is based on A=A, the laws of identity,
contradiction etc. It is impossible for a self-aware being to not
operate in the realm of logic (though they may not be fully aware
that this is so). Logic is the immediate and necessary
consequence of consciousness (discrimination). Our consciousness
is not something that we merely "think" is there; it is
something that cannot be denied or refuted (here we return to the
basic observation that "something is"). The manner in
which it is ultimately "there" is a matter for thought
and examination, but the brute fact of it is not open to [coherent]
question.

People who deny logic in the way you are attempting are being
ignorant in the extreme, since it requires logic for them to even
begin to articulate any such point of view. Once this is
comprehended, and the nature of definitions is comprehended,
every point you've tried to make in this discussion evaporates
into the ether of false thinking.

If what you say is not true, it is worthless; if what you say is
true, it contradicts itself making it false - all of which adds
up to the fact that what you say cannot be valid.

Matthew Timpanelli: I am not stating any of this to be proven true, Im
stating it to be what i believe based on facts.

Dan Rowden: That distinction is irrelevant. The real "fact"
here is that your position cannot possibly be true,
therefore there is no point in even holding onto to it as a
belief or theory or suchlike. It's in the same boat as "all
knowledge is uncertain".

Matthew Timpanelli: I can never be completely sure.

Dan Rowden: That statement is a perfect example of your current
lack of insight into logic, your "feel" for logical
consequence. The statement contains a flat-out contradiction
which makes it absurd. Unfortunately, you indulge in this kind of
contradictory thinking on a regular basis. At the very least you
need to rethink the way you express your ideas.

Maybe you should say something like: "I don't see any way
that I can ever be completely sure of anything." That would
reflect your position rather than make you look like someone who
can't see a contradiction even when they're indulging in one and
when its repeatedly pointed out to them.

Matthew Timpanelli: My effort is to try to explore the existence of truth
or lack there of. We can not just assume they exist.

Dan Rowden: That is certainly commendable, yet, we must,
necessarily assume the existence of truth for any search for it
to be other than insane. Who in their right mind goes searching
for the Lost Continent if they don't first assume (i.e.
hypothesise) that it exists? And, more to the point, one cannot
coherently do other than assume Truth exists. The denial of its
existence constitutes an assumption of its existence! But that
contains a piece of logic that is precisely what is being missed
here.

Dan Rowden: Matt Timpanelli wrote: "unless there is some
higher consciousness or something outside the universe that can
never be proven IMO. Any theory is based on a POV even though its
meant to be free of them. You just simply cannot escape it."

Unfortunately this response completely ignores "Universe"
as defined to be the Totality of all that is. There can be
nothing "outside" the Universe by definition. And,
frankly, any definition of the term "universe" that
means other than all that is, makes nonsense of the very
term Uni-verse.

Of course, Matt Gregory has already pointed this out, but for
some reason Matt Timpanelli is choosing to ignore that and, even
worse, is making arguments via ideas/assertions that he clearly(?)
knows to be false. I don't know about Matt G., but it's making my
head spin!

Matt Gregory: Me too. I can't really put my finger on it, but it's
almost as if he's making the argument that we cannot define
something unless some impossible contradiction is true.

Matthew Timpanelli: Thats exactly what im saying. And thats what your
saying about me. I stated quite clearly this is not what I
believe to be true but something that must be true for Matt G to
be valid, since by definition nothing can be outside of the
universe nothing can be proven true for all POV's.

Dan Rowden: To my mind, what you are doing is something along the
lines of taking flat out contradictions and using them as valid
refutations of concepts that may be applied universally or
absolutely. It's like switching from one perspective to another
without acknowledging the absence of any logical connection
between them. In other words, it's switching from one definition
to another and using one to argue against the other, which isn't
valid because the basis of each defined "thing" becomes
different.

In short, the person starts to do the proverbial apples and
oranges thing.....

That nothing can be outside the Universe is something proven true
for all points of view, since it cannot be false for any
point of view (this is because, and take heed of this part very
carefully - someone defining "Universe" differently
from me is thereby not talking about the same thing as me - use
of the same word being irrelevant).

The problem here, Matthew, is that you still haven't quite
figured out the meaning and significance of definitions. No-one,
and I mean no-one who has lived, does live, or will ever
live can falsify my definition of "Universe" -
therefore, what I say about it is true from my point of view,
certainly, but it also necessarily true from all points of view.
It simply cannot be otherwise.

Man dreads the feminine because he fears the
loss of his own individuality and identity. This is man's classic
weakness, highlighting a major flaw in his character. But is he
so bad? Should a man not fear the loss of his individuality, his
reason, and his dignity? Woe is he who does not fear the loss of
his soul!

Man's dread of the feminine is said to be the
fuel behind his repression of women throughout history. Maybe so,
but this is no excuse to do away with male reason! On the
contrary, if man's rationality and strength were made perfect
he would feel no such threat from woman, as he would have no need
of her emotional services, and would no longer need to keep her
subservient to his will.

The solution is not to make man abandon his
identity in favour of the feminine, but to encourage both men and
women to take reason to its completion. Many believe rationality
to have reached its limits and become unproductive. They say
reason is not enough by itself, and that we must now turn to the
heart within, using feelings in conjunction with reason. O ye of
little faith! You have not yet begun to use reason, yet
claim to have exhausted it! You have abandoned reason and the
"either/or" as though it were a burden! I beg of you, either
reason or feelings, but please, not both! You choose
reason only when it suits you, and feelings, or should I say
fantasy, when it suits you. Even on those rare occasions when you
do resort to reason it is only to try to justify your fantasies.

The women of this world, of both sexes, say
that the age of men is over because his science has failed to
provide us with ultimate values. Yet science is not to blame. The
fault lies entirely with the miserable so-called scientists
who have limited themselves to what is physically and
demonstrably provable. They have carved out a small niche for
themselves and called it science, yet it is not
science. They conveniently ignore the fact that many truths are
not experimentally and physically provable, and that many truths
are not demonstrable under any circumstances to those who lack
sufficient intellectual courage to see them. In the hands of
these fools has science become a mere tool, one among many, to
aid in the survival of the ego. One moment these bumbling
scientists espouse science, and the next they worshipfully extol
emotional feelings and religion!

Scientific truth is the one and only Truth, yet
the morons who call themselves scientists wouldn't have any idea
about such a thing. The truly scientific mind is the mind that
seeks Ultimate Truth at all costs and without compromise. Such a
mind is infinitely remote from the scientists and philosophers of
today.

The desire for Truth and the love of reason is
indeed an emotional passion, but no ordinary passion, for it ends
in the destruction of passion. However, if you use reason only
sparingly and without complete love, as do the scientists, then
your reason will be no more than ordinary greed, used
opportunistically and inconsistently. In such a dilapidated state
of mind you will have no right to proclaim reason above the
feminine emotions. If you do not follow reason tocompletion
your inconsistency will leave you open to a thousand criticisms.
You will be told you are suppressing feelings - and you will
be - as you will lack the power to utterly destroy feelings
as they should be destroyed. You will be a hypocrite, living a
double life with double standards.

Scholars cannot see beyond the emotions. To
them, the emotions and feelings are a permanent fixture that can
only ever be repressed, never extinguished. They regard those who
seek the perfection of reason to be unrealistic and egotistical
idealists, and will laugh at them. These impostors give science a
bad name. Please do not take them as representative of science,
but rather see them as the parasites they are.

Man may be the more rational of the sexes, but
do not expect too much of him: he falls on a regular basis. His
falling, however, does not necessarily mean he is on the wrong
track. Let it be remembered that no matter how good one's
intentions, until one has achieved absolute perfection, one's
activity will be not be without fault. As long as there is
striving there is lacking. Man strives, therefore he lacks. He
appears cloddish, foolish, unnatural as he moves in unfamiliar
ways traversing new ground.

Woman moves differently. She is consistent, in
that shedoes nothing. She does not strive, so does
not fail. Her lack of embarrassing slips is not so much evidence
that she is on the right path, as it is proof she is going
nowhere.

Man is substance and therefore has something to
lose. Understandably he fears woman, who threatens to deny him
any higher striving. In contrast, woman has nothing to fear from
man, as she has no identity to lose. Man fears re-engulfment by
the mother, but woman never left the mothers womb - never became
a self. Man is like water trying to flow uphill, and woman is the
lake below, waiting to catch him should he fall. Woman is of the
earth, is the earth, and extols the earth. Man is a
homeless wanderer, extols the stars, reaches for the stars . . .
and looks foolish when he falls short.

Only when your consuming passion for truth is
so strong that passion itself is consumed, only then will you be
without fear of woman or man. You will then have made a clean
break from the womb, and become the Mother of all mothers. Only
then can you rightly and deservedly speak of reason as being the
superior passion. Only then will your desires be entirely without
desire and your loves without love. Until that time you are too
much of a woman.

The resurgence of the feminine philosophy of
feelings is a serious threat to science and reason. Don't get me
wrong, I will support any woman who tries to develop her mind, or
any demand upon men to be more consistent and rational. I will
not, however, tolerate the spread of feminine values to the
detriment of Truth. Science has failed not because of men, but
because there is all too much of a woman in man. Man is not
masculine enough!

We are told that if we relied more on our
feelings than on reason, there would not be so much violence in
this world. We are led to believe that reason is the cause
of war and violence! But I tell you, reason is only harmful when
it used to justify the feminine in us, the emotions and feelings.
Woman's thought is intuitive and unstructured. Man's thought is
lateral and connected. That is, he is capable of both the
intuitive and the rational. We must not deny him his
reason.

I am told that rationality makes one uncaring
and cold. Then I must be truly hateful and icy cold, for there
are few more rational than I. Yet I bring the end of the ice-age!

Irena: All that is is all that there will be. All that there
will be is all that there is. Nice. Succinct. But what about All
that there isn't? By that I mean humans assume the universe is
all they do and will know, all that they can comprehend. But
surely as humans we should allow that there maybe things beyond
our comprehension, and even beyond our capacity to comprehend,
and though we may include that incomprehensiblity into a theory
of All, it does not necessarily complete our concept of all.

When you assume numbers continue into infinity you don't really
know, not for certain, you say numbers and all that. Already you
see you are lacking all the data. Life for you maybe all you will
ever know, but this doesn't mean all of life is only what you'll
ever know. Ditto for concept of All in general. It becomes a
meaningless catchall...HAHAhahaha oops

Matt Gregory: Our concept of All is complete because it's not
necessary for every element of a set to enter our consciousness
in order for it to be a complete idea. The definition of the set
makes it complete, in that whenever something enters our
awareness, we can take that thing and see if it fits within our
definition. The definition draws a boundary between what is in
the set and what is not. Taking numbers as an example, if we
define a number as a string of digits (for brevity's sake), then
any string of digits is a number and everything else is not. It's
easy to take any object/idea/thing in the universe and see
whether it fits within that definition or not. So we've drawn a
boundary between numbers and non-numbers.

The concept of the All is the clearest definition possible. It
has no boundary, so there is nothing that doesn't fit within it.
Every thing, whether it is known or unknown, is included in the
All. I don't find it meaningless, I find it the most meaningful
thing of all. (ha)

THERE'S nothing new about bullying.
It's been a cruel schoolyard and workplace tactic since time
began, and its devastating effects on people's physical, mental
and emotional health are well-documented.

But traditionally it's been viewed as a crime committed by men.
Girl bullying has largely been dismissed as "bitchiness"
 but that's all changing. Female bullying has become a hot
topic among national and international academics. The keynote
speaker at this week's Queensland Guidance and Counselling
Association conference in Brisbane was UK child psychologist Dr
Val Besag who has studied bullying among girls for years. Besag
says the way girls bully differs markedly from boys but can
inflict deeper, longer-term scars than most boyish schoolground
scraps. She says girl bullying has historically been downplayed
because it usually occurs between friends.

But this is precisely what makes
it so nasty and destructive, according to University of South
Australia lecturer and educational psychologist Barbara Spears
who is completing a PhD on girl bullying. Bullying, she says, is
not the sole domain of one gender but while boys tend to use
physical violence, girls focus on the emotional.

Their ultimate aim is to exclude, ostracise and socially isolate
their victim and they do this through subtle, often secretive,
and indirect means  silent treatment, spreading rumours,
deliberately breaking up friendships and looking their victim up
and down with disdain. Because of their tactics, academics refer
to girl bullying by a different name  "relational
aggression". Girls inflict this emotional violence for much
longer than the average male, driving a slow, painful campaign of
calculated torture which can involve manipulating shared
intimacies and honing in on known insecurities: weight, sexual
activity etc.

Text messaging on mobile phones and the Internet allow a bully to
attack anywhere, anytime and to reach an unlimited audience.
But for all the damage that old-fashioned gossip, lies and
innuendo can cause, technology has provided girls with possibly
the most deadly weapon of all. Text messaging on mobile phones
and the Internet allow a bully to attack anywhere, anytime and to
reach an unlimited audience with their slander. In one case,
Spears says a group of girls created a website about one of their
peers for the explicit purpose of degrading, insulting and
defaming her with sexual innuendos and insults about her physical
appearance.
"It's a bit bigger than the toilet wall or a note passed in
class," Spears says.

Apart from a greater audience, technology provides anonymity
which enables bullies to get away with harsher, more damaging
games, says counselling psychologist, professional speaker and
author Evelyn Field. "Notes always went around a class but a
lot of nasty stuff can be given on e-mails and mobile phones and
computers that never would have been put on notes," she says.

Technology can, in fact, enable some bullies to hide. One
Brisbane mother said her daughter Kate (not her real name) was
bullied with nasty e-mails from one of her closest friends. At
first she thought it was a joke but, after time, she became upset
and sick. It was discovered the girl was using another friend's e-mail
service. "It was really bad language and it was messages
like nobody likes you, you're a show-off and you're ugly 
that sort of thing," says the mother who wished to be known
only as Mary.

At the heart of the issue for the bully, says Mary, was feelings
of insecurity and anxiety about the strength of her friendships
within the group and seeing Kate as a threat to making bonds.
Mary says her son was also bullied at school, but it had been
physical abuse. "The difference between girls and boys is
that the boy bully likes to be acknowledged and recognised as
strong and powerful but for a female it's more than often around
jealousy and it's so shrouded because they don't want anyone to
know that they're the bullies so it's very subtle," she says.

University of South Australia professor Ken Rigby, who has
studied bullying for the past 12 years, says there's no way of
telling whether girls are becoming increasingly more aggressive
towards their peers than in the past. "People's
sensitivities have generally risen to people who practise hurtful
behaviours  we've seen that with sexual and racial
harassment," he says. Rigby says two or three children in
each class will be hurt by bullying which sometimes causes
suicidal and other psychological problems well into adulthood.
Bullies and those who go along with the game often don't
understand that their behaviour is hurtful.

Girls see it as bitchy, not bullying. In a Queensland classroom
of Year 5 girls, one girl became the victim of indirect bullying.
Rumours were spread that she liked a boy in Year 7 and her peers
said she needed to go on a diet because she was fat.

When counselled, the girls reported not viewing their behaviour
as bullying. They saw it as being "bitchy" or "catty".
"Once it was named and brought out in the open, a lot of the
power was taken away," school guidance counsellor Mary
Williams says. "We talked to the girls about power 
who are they willing to give their power to and how this enables
that person to control them and affect the way they feel about
themselves."

Field, who wrote Bully Busting (published by Finch), says
relational aggression hits its target more often with girls
because their friendships are so important to them and they're
better at subtle, non-verbal communication. "Girls are more
responsive to the use of eye, face and body language and this can
be used in a positive way to be emotionally responsive and
supportive to friends or in a negative, destructive way to pick
up the vulnerability in another girl," she says.

Friendships for 13 and 14-year-old girls are everything. Field
says it's through affiliating with a small tribe that girls form
their identity, get a feeling of belonging and acceptance and
develop self-esteem and confidence. "Boys tend to hang
around together, playing a game of football or something in a big
group but girls want to affiliate with a small group," she
says.

It's within this tribe that
bullying most often occurs, particularly during Years 9 and 10
when teenage girls are at the peak of forming an identity and
jostling for power and positions within their social groups. Once
they get to Years 11 and 12, says Field, they have a a better
sense of who they are, have more confidence and are less needy of
a tight group affiliation.

A big problem for the girls, their parents and their schools is
pinning down that cleverly subtle and often secretive offending
behaviour. "How do you define that look, that rolling of the
eyes, the shoulder shrug or the way they look you up and down?"
Field says. "And how do you tackle that? It's so underhanded."

She says parents can play a pivotal role in changing their
child's behaviour by encouraging empathy, in the case of a bully,
and teaching them assertiveness skill in the case of a victim.
"If that doesn't work, talk to the school, look at a book or
if my child was badly bullied, I would be getting professional
help because usually four to six sessions with a psychologist can
be all it takes to deal with the pain of being bullied and then
to teach them what to do when they are being teased," she
says.

Rigby agrees that parents play a pivotal role but also says the
environment and bystanders have equal impact. "Parents who
are cold and overcontrolling can lead to kids wanting to take
their frustrations out on other children," he says. "But
bullying is very much stimulated by the ethos of a particular
school  if tough, rough kids are admired, those capable of
doing that will engage in it.
"The social factors are more important than the individual
personality factors. While most children believe bullying is
wrong, in practice, a remarkable number of children watch and
encourage it."

Rigby says that the inability to
identify bullying behaviour is why many anti-bullying programs
within schools are having limited success. "It's important
to recognise that a great deal of harm is insidious and cannot be
counted by rules of consequences," he says. "The only
way to get around it is to bring it into the open with children
and talk about it."

He says anti-bullying education should start with role-playing
with children in preschool and exploring their feelings about
teasing. Research has found that the loss of self-esteem,
confidence and self-worth from school bullying can leave scars
that often last through the adult years. Rigby says many people
in their 20s, 30s and 40s report that being bullied at school
left them with ongoing problems such as an inability to join new
groups of people or engage in activities. "It can involve
depression and suicidal thinking," he says. "But
relational aggression is something we experience our whole lives.
It doesn't stop when we leave school  we find it in
families and workplaces too."

Picking
on men

The Sunday Mail

by KRISTY SEXTON
30 June 02

THE battle of the sexes has taken a new turn,
with men bearing the brunt of the nation's jokes in advertising
campaigns. Commercials depicting scantily-clad women are being
replaced by men who are ridiculed as stupid and incompetent.
Academics say the trend is a backlash against years of
advertising campaigns which portrayed women as sex objects. In
the latest Coon Lite cheese commercial, a couple are featured
sitting on a couch, tucking into a toasted cheese sandwich. When
the man says he loves Coon Lite the woman calls him an idiot for
not realising she was talking about turning off the light.

A feminine hygiene commercial portrays a woman who smiles
lovingly at her confused partner and indulgently murmurs "idiot"
when he fails to realise her tampons are not the diet pills that
he mistakes them to be.

A Huggies nappy commercial features a mother who croons "silly
daddy" to her baby after her husband mistakenly tells his
wife their baby has a dry nappy, when it is wet. Then there is
the print ad for an electronic washing machine which implies all
men are lazy with the caption "Man lifts finger" under
a picture of a button being pressed. Billboards featuring men are
also becoming more raunchy. Aussie model Travis Fimmel, clad in a
pair of white jocks, is the star of the latest Calvin Klein
advertisement. The daring billboard was removed from a busy
London intersection because it was causing traffic jams last
month. Voodoo hosiery advertisements are controversial; one of
them has a young woman leading two naked men on a leash, another
has a woman sitting on two naked men.

Alan McKee, president of the Cultural Studies Association of
Australia and lecturer at the University of Queensland, said it
would be considered "unacceptable to portray women in the
same light" (as the men in those ads). Dr McKee said: "It
would be seen to be sexist to portray women in the same light
 as being the butt of jokes. Feminism over the past 30
years has completely changed the way we look at gender, and
social relationships are continually changing. "What we have
here is organisations showing men what it feels like to be
portrayed in a certain way, and that's when change really starts
to happen. Still, I don't think all men would be particularly
happy with this style of advertising."

A spokeswoman for Dairy Farmers, manufacturer of Coon cheese,
defended the commercial, saying it had been well received by the
public. She said the commercial was not meant to offend men and
was simply a "fun, tongue-in-cheek look at the opposite sex".

Janet Hogan, spokeswoman for Streamline, which created the Voodoo
hosiery billboards for Kolotex, said the naked men advertisements
were all about "girl power" and not meant to be
offensive. A spokesman for the Advertising Standards board said
it had not received any complaints about the commercials.
However, it had received 14 written complaints about the Voodoo
billboard featuring men on a leash. He said there were no plans
to remove the billboards and the panel had found that while some
people had different perceptions of the advertisement, "the
campaign represented a satirical comment on a patriarchal world".

David Quinn: Here is an interesting psychological question: Why is
the erect penis not allowed to be shown in the mainstream media,
or even in R-rated porn films?

Dan Rowden: Because it's too overlty symbolic of male power and
domination? Or maybe because hardly anyone has wide-screen TVs....

Matthew Timpanelli: I think a penis makes most people uncomfortable. The
male anatomy itself is quite grotesque. Not in line with our
current ideals of beauty. Years ago in the Renassiance the male
anatomy was hanging all over the place. I guess that's probably
due to Michaelangelo's alleged homosexuality.

David Quinn: On the other hand, in those days, the penis was always
depicted as very small, reflecting their belief that man's
loftiness vastly outshone his animal sexuality. The same was true
for the ancient Greeks. These days, by contrast, whenever a penis
is depicted, it tends to be very big .....

The argument that the penis is ugly doesn't work for me because (a)
limp penises, which are just as ugly as erect ones, are allowed
to be shown in the mainstream media, and (b) the vagina is just
as grotesque as the penis, and yet it too is shown quite
frequently.

Dan's argument that the erect penis represents man's power and
domination also doesn't work for me because even during those
times in the past where the fashion was to glorify man's
dominance, the erect penis was rarely depicted or shown.

Matt Gregory: I think it's obvious that seeing an erect penis makes
women horny. They don't show it on the tube because women are
horny enough as it is. Even seeing the word "erection"
paralyzes many women.

Marsha Faizi: My God. Paralyzed by a penile erection. I cannot tell
you how many times that has happened to me. Hell, I am
practically paralyzed now just seeing it written here.

Like many women, I can enjoy a penis but only if it is attached
to a man in whom I am interested. Since I am exceedingly picky
about men -- to the point that I am not interested in any -- I am
not interested in a penis. If I wanted a dick, I could buy one.
It's not a big deal.

Shardrol: I think it has to do with our current cultural
schizophrenia about sex. Sex is considered great as an idea -
everyone should be very concerned with sex & their own sex
appeal. But this is sex as a symbol for success: a successful
person should be young, smart, sexy & rich. It has almost
nothing to do with actual sex.

The sex act itself in mainstream media is always shrouded in some
kind of 'tasteful' presentation. People may grunt & groan a
lot, & thrash about under the sheets, but we do not see the
actual connecting body parts. The vagina as well as the erect
penis is never shown. There may be a daring glimpse of pubic hair
but never the 'wide open beaver' shots you find in porn.

David Quinn: In R-rated porn, which here in Australia means the kind
of porn that is considered acceptable by the mainstream, wide
open beaver shots are shown quite frequently, while the erect
penis is not shown at all.

Shardrol: I have to admit it's been a while since I made any
firsthand investigation of porn but I think it's quite different
here. An R rating will get you breasts & perhaps some
buttocks, but no explicit genitalia. I believe even an X rating
doesn't involve erections or vaginas. For that you need to go to
pure porn, which isn't rated.

David Quinn: I've been watching a bit of R-rated porn lately -
purely out of intellectual curiosity, of course - and here in
Australia at least, R-rated porn shows virtually everything
contained in a standard sexual encounter, with the glaring
exception of the erect penis. Clear shots of the vagina and
clitoris, cunnilingus, vaginal penetration with a dildo, etc, are
all shown openly. Even erect penises within clothing and
underwear are shown. But as soon as the penis comes out into the
open, it is immediately censored out. This seems quite insane to
me and needs an explanation.

Matthew Timpanelli: I agree with Sardrol that sex is an underground thing.
I mean, I don't know what women talk about, but men don't usually
go around talking about the specifics in a sexual encounter, like
"So I threw her on the bed and her wide open beaver..."
It's not a social thing for men. I have heard that women explain
details, which is most likely true.

If this is the case perhaps the reason for no erections is that
men are too homophobic, and this is a male dominated society.

David Quinn: And yet the X-rated porn industry, which prominently
feature erect penises, is huge in Western society. The biggest
money-spinner on the internet is hardcore porn. So clearly, if a
homophobia is a factor, it is one that men easily conquer.

Matthew Timpanelli: It's a private thing for men. No man goes around
saying, "Yo, I got this great porn with huge erect penises".
They are afraid of being labeled as homosexual, it's the way
things are. Few men are comfortable enough with their sexuality
to say I like to watch penetration from an exaggerated phallic
object. When in reality the reason may be because the male
prefers to watch the complete domination of a woman.

Yes, the porn industry is huge, tremendous, but let's see if
daddy brings up this topic at the dinner table.

Shardrol: This relates to the actually quite hilarious
distinction between 'porn' & 'erotica'. Porn is material that
is produced with the sole purpose of sexually arousing the
consumer whereas erotica means doing it more tastefully, with a
bit more subtlety. Erotica gives people deniability - they are
not just reading / watching this stuff to get their rocks off,
it's Art.

David Quinn: Too true!

Shardrol: An erect penis is not art. It is too clearly blatantly
sexual. A penis at rest can be art, because then it becomes just
another part of the human body. Same for the vagina, even though
it doesn't change its form very much. We think of these things as
grotesque in order to distance ourselves from our animal nature.

David Quinn: I've always found the vagina to be a grotesque thing
and not just because it reminds me of our animal sexuality. I
mean, what is a vagina but a moist, smelly, germ-ridden pit
surrounded by a mass of hair? It's not exactly the most aesthetic
object in the universe.

I AM: I don't know, man...It has always smelled and looked
like a pretty little flower to me. Seeing it on TV or porn
doesn't alway show it's true colors. Sometimes you have to get to
know it, just like any other person you meet.

Shardrol: Female breasts are not grotesque - we all learn to like
them as babies - so that is a body part that everyone can enjoy
without a lot of conflict.

David Quinn: Unless, of course, you think of them as udders..........

Shardrol: The reason I referred to this as cultural schizophrenia
is because we don't, for the most part, want to deny our animal
nature in actual practice (celibacy is not popular), we just
don't wish to be reminded of it in too raw a form.

David Quinn: That's partly it, but I believe there is a lot more to
it than that. What an erect penis represents is the combination
of raw sexuality and masculinity, which makes it a potent mix.
Masculinity is inherently purposeful, independent, a law unto
itself. If it becomes consumed by sexual desire, then it becomes
even more anti-social than normal and represents a potential
danger to everyone. For it means that masculine consciousness has
lost control of itself and become unreachable by reason.

Something is normally considered to be evil is it purposefully
and relentlessly trying to harm us. Since an erect penis combines
these twin traits of purposefulness and threat, it comes close to
embodying evil.

Still, this doesn't answer the question of why erect penises are
never shown in the mainstream media. Other forms of evil are
happily shown, but not this particular one.

Shardrol: I think you're onto something here. An erect penis is a
threat to social order & stability. It's a willful vector of
chaos. Marriage functions to contain & control male
sexuality, which would otherwise be highly disruptive to
organized life. Hmm, now I'm starting to sound like Desmond
Morris. Anyway, I agree with you.

Matt Gregory: I still think it's because of male executives trying to
keep their wives and daughters from thinking of sex, and women's
unwillingness to "fight for the right" because of the
whole "slut" thing. I think women are basically seen as
unfaithful and untrustworthy.

Shardrol: I think you make a good point as well, Matt.

Matt Gregory: I don't know what I'm saying. I can't think clearly
about this topic. Sexuality is the worst curse ever bestowed upon
me, I think. The whole thing makes me bitter.

Shardrol: Men may be interested in seeing female body parts but
are usually less interested in having to confront the reality of
another man's penis being involved. I suppose the absent penis is
meant to be that of the viewer who projects himself into the
scene. It is said that women are more likely to identify with
other women so they too may enjoy depictions of a man with an
invisible dick mounting a naked woman. But when it comes to
genitalia I don't think women are any more interested in viewing
other women's vaginas than men are in viewing other men's erect
penises. However, I should hastily add that I am for the most
part grossly ignorant about this sort of thing, being a solitary
sour old crone myself.

David Quinn: It is easy enough for a man to identify with another
man's penis and thus to experience the sexuality displayed on the
screen vicariously. Most men, I imagine, would get a lot more out
of the experience seeing the penis than not seeing it. So I don't
think you're on the right track here.

You're point about an erect penis being a threat to social order
& stability is a lot closer to the truth. The whole of
civilization rests on the male's ability to compartmentalize his
mind. Compartmentalization allows the male to suppress and
contain potentially disruptive things like his sexuality and his
emotions, so as to keep a large proportion of his mind free to
attend to the "nobler" aspects of life - e.g.
maintaining and improving the workings of society. The image of a
male with an erection seems to undermine this
compartmentalization process. It makes everything fuzzy and
symbolically brings civilization to the edge of collapse.

However, I think there is an even deeper explanation of why there
is a relentless taboo on erect penises. What the erect penis does
is bring the entire realm of sex into vivid contrast with the
loftier aspects of humanity, which only serves to highlight the
underlying evil of sex. The sight of a woman's genitalia doesn't
create this conflict because, in general, a woman doesn't embody
anything noble in her mind. There is no real conflict between who
she is as a person and her sexual features. But a man with an
erection is an entirely different matter. Seeing him, one cannot
help but observe sexuality through the prism of masculine
nobility. The sight is so disgusting for most people that the
overwhelming desire arises to block the penis out of sight. The
censored penis is thus a visible symbol of humanity's fundamental
guilt about sex.

Matt Gregory: Let me get this straight. You're saying that when
someone sees a naked man with an erection they immediately think
of humanity as a whole?

David Quinn: I'm saying that they perceive the contrast between
masculine purity and the evils of sex - at least on a
subconscious level.

That's why in hardcore porn films, the male actors are invariably
very animalistic and narcissistic in their personality and
features. It serves to minimize the contrast and the suffering
that is associated with it. Watching a more noble kind of male
engaging in these films would be unbearable.

Matt Gregory: Also, I'm having a hard time seeing how everyone could
associate masculinity with nobility. As far as I know, most
people think of masculinity as equivalent to male sexuality and
that all men are pigs, just out to get laid.

David Quinn: It's really only women who say this, and they only do
it as a way of compensating against an inferior complex that they
inherently possess towards men. In other words, most women
believe deep down that men are the superior sex in virtually all
areas of life, which is why they continually have to denigrate
them in order to retrieve some sense of power

Suergaz: Dave, that's such a cliched thing to say!

David Quinn: Cliches are often true.

Suergaz: You know the most beautiful women do not need to
denigrate men! Even some of the plainer ones find themselves in
something higher!

David Quinn: A woman's wisdom is her beauty. A man's beauty is his
wisdom.

Leo Bartoli: There are many highly-conscious reasons [for why erect
penises are never shown], but at bottom, for the most part, it
comes down to Woman's insatiable need to control Man. This could
be further divided into two parts; for reasons of practicality/security
and for reasons of pleasure.

Woman has been covering Man's penis from the beginning, and has
always been it's gate-keeper, deciding the whens and hows of its
exposure according to her idea of what's best. This tendency and
control is deliberately maintained, with some strategic
adjustment, well beyond motherhood.

Woman has forever jockeyed for total control of the penis, of an
erection. Her entire existence, Her very purpose in life, depends
on that one thing which She has not, up to this point, been able
to fully master.

Dan Rowden: What's the mechanism, Leo, by which women control the
appearance of the erect penis in mainstream media?

Leo Bartoli: What's the mechanism by which Woman controls anything?

Dan Rowden: Just answer the question, Leo. I want to see your
version of it (as it's applicable in this specific context), not
simply give you mine.

Leo Bartoli: Why should I bother? Are you suddenly teachable?

Dan Rowden: The reason, specifically, that I'm asking for an
explanation of what you think is the dynamic of female control
over men - in this instance - is that I think you are wrong to
assert it.

It is not women who are disturbed by the vision of an erect dick.
They have no reason to be. For women it excites their natural
sexual passivity, submission and receptivity and it also
unconsciously symbolises their power over men. It is men who have
a problem with because it is men who experience that sense of a
loss of consciousness, control and "civilization" that
David was talking about. Women experience no such thing.

And it's worth noting that the censors who stop erect penii from
being shown have traditionally been men. Contemporary censorship,
with a slowly increasing female contribution and influence, is
actually relaxing these "standards" and it is
increasingly possible to see erect penii in the mainstream media.

Leo Bartoli: At best, it's a reflection of changing attitudes in
some women, not proof that Woman hasn't much control. Men do what
suites women. Their pleasure depends on it.

I The Master: Leo does have a point here. The female controls the
erection in every possible way, always has, always will. Its
existence only has context and purpose in relation to a female,
therefore rendering the male powerless over how it is percieved (and
dealt with, censored, etc).

Dan Rowden: Leo doesn't really have a point at all. He's employing
a "one size fits all" method of argument. That is, he's
making a sweeping and somewhat platitudinous point about female
control over men as if that argument applied in the same way and
to the same degree in any and every circumstance. It doesn't.

It is precisely the loss of power, control, consciousness etc,
that David was talking about that causes the desire to censor.
This is an explicitly masculine response. Women may ape the
social morality imposed by men with relation to public nudity of
this form, but that doesn't mean it is women who are in the
background, inducing this social morality. If you think it is,
you'll have to come up with some reasons as to why women would
want it.

Leo's argument, which amounts to "women want to control men
in all possible ways" doesn't work in this instance because
I find it more meaningful (i.e. more accurate) to think that
women would attempt to exercise control over men by talking away
their desire to censor this symbol of their loss of
consciousness, of their unmitigated adoration of, and attachment
to, women.

And there's another point to be made here, and that is the erect
penis is a symbol of man's animal and base attachment to the
female, which stands in direct conflict with the more important
and overriding force in his psyche - that of the ideation of
"Woman".

The erect penis is as much a symbol of the destruction of Woman (because
it represents the animal, not the ideal) as it is of
consciousness and civilization, as David suggested. Indeed, those
things are intimately connected. The erect penis represents the
abandonment of those things in relation to women that generally
loom largest in the male psyche - the ideation of Woman.

Women have no real sense of any of this and therefore I think it
is incumbent on those who argue for female control to give a non-platitudinous
explanation of the psychological reasons for that desire for
control - in this instance.

Leo Bartoli: Dan, the explanation of David's [that the censored
penis is an expression of guilt] doesn't really answer the
question, isn't specific to exposure of erections, for instance.
It's clear that David, and maybe you, Dan, are viewing the matter
much too subjectively (ie "so disgusting") to get to
the bottom of it. You're projecting your own impressions and
reactions onto and into people who possess a very different
psychological makeup.

David Quinn: I personally don't find the penis disgusting. But it's
evident that a lot of people do, judging by the constant need to
censor it out. That disgust needs to be explained.

Leo Bartoli: You mean the censoring needs to be explained, any male
disgust is only a minor factor and would readily be trampled,
discounted, if contrary to Womans will.

David Quinn: Like Danny, I think you constantly overstate your case
in these matters, which is a sign of a lazy thinker.

Leo Bartoli: Forget Danny, just speak for yourself. If I'm going to
take you seriously, there is no conclusion to draw other than
you're in denial, and as I've suggested in the past, quite
possibly due to the fact that there isn't room enough for the
reality of your own powerlessness and dependency on the feminine-minded
in your life. You can't accept the fact that you're a mere puppet
on strings they command, as is even God Itself, and at the same
time respect them enough to remain familiar, or even alive for
that matter. But I hope I'm wrong.

David Quinn: Even God is a mere puppet at the hands of women .....?
Surely, this is taking your worship of womanhood a bit far!
Simply dismissing everything that happens in the world as the
dictate of Woman is not only all-too-easy and convenient, but it
also belittles men in a false way. For it implies that men have
no capacity to make judgments and decisions independently of
Woman. Or to put it another, it is denying the existence of the
male soul.

In this specific case, it may well be that men in the past have
decided, as an independent moral action, not to graphically show
the penis. But you've already ruled out that possibility because
of your lazy dogmatism.

Leo Bartoli: Are you losing sight of the question you posed?

David Quinn: I don't think so. It may be that the censored erect
penis is a direct expression of men's relationship to Truth. It
is a way of saying that, even though they are hedonistically
engaging in porn, they have not completely given themselves over
to unconsciousness. They have not totally forgotten God.

Leo Bartoli: I'm not denying the existence of the male soul, only
pointing out that in our world men in the main are powerless, and
when it seems not it is only because there's no significant
conflict with Womans will; either that or the law hasn't quite
yet caught up with them.

Dan Rowden: Leo has a point only insofar as Woman
represents a significant part of man's overall sense of "civilization",
and man's sense of civilization is a factor in the equation. She
therefore constitutes a contributing factor in the general
reasons that men might move to restrict the appearance of the
erect penis in mainstream media. However, it is only one factor
and not the whole story as Leo would have it.

It also has little to do with women, as such. "Woman"
is not a feminine construct. It is a purely masculine ideation
and women have no relationship to it other than their unconscious
striving to live up to it. They certainly have no relation to it
on any abstract, intellectual level.

Women have no mental relation to, and therefore cannot possibly
directly influence the factor of male disturbance at the loss of
consciousness and nobility that the erect penis represents for
them; it is entirely a matter for the masculine mind and women
have no part in that except for their indirect role as a source
of sexual attraction for men.

Are we to say, according to Leo's theory, that the herdsmen of
the Andes, when rutting their Alpaca for sexual release are under
the exotic spell of their flock? That their unwillingness to
present their erect penii to all and sundry - to wave it about
for Sunday entertainment, so to speak - is because of the
unconscious control exercised over them by the Alpaca fems? I
don't think so.

Lone Deranger: Off the topic of erect penises for a moment,
fascinating a topic as it be to all we truthseekers, why the
shunning of man's animal nature? Is this a blow to some's ego to
think themself to have anything to do with the animal world?

David Quinn: It's not so much the shunning of man's animal nature,
but the shunning of the will to unconsciousness. A man with an
erection is a man who is narcisistically obsessed with his own
physical sensations and thus dwelling at the lowest mental level
possible, short of death. The glorification of sex is essentially
the glorification of unconsciousness.

I The
Master: What is it that allows
certain individuals to achieve a higher level of consciousness/awareness?
Or perhaps more importantly, what is it that inhibits it?

One explanation I have reasoned is the following; to decrease the
stress of consciousness. Most human organisms, as a survival
mechanism. shut down the brain's infinite capacity early in life,
so it becomes hard wired into a closed circuit, a finite loop of
perception. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

David Quinn: I reckon you pretty much hit it on the head. People
reduce their mental horizons in order to reduce their levels of
stress. This is particularly true of older people (30+) who rely
heavily on strong attachments such as career and family to get
them through the day. When you're younger, you have fewer
attachments and you are still exploring what life has to offer,
and so you are still open to the possibilities of philosophy. But
once you hit thirty that zeal for exploration begins to diminish
and you start wanting to settle down in life. A life of truth
becomes increasingly unattractive.

Also, the more truthful you become, the more alienated you become
from the rest of humanity. Almost every encounter with other
human beings becomes a tension-filled clash. Your truthfulness
irks and scares those who value their false attachments, which
only serves to increase your stress levels. This is probably the
biggest reason why people avoid truth like the plague. Abandoning
the ideal of truth enables them to snuggle up more comfortably
with one another and creates a more harmonious social life.

Non Sum: Christ, DQ, first you're a sexist, now you're an
ageist; what next? So very many elderly philosophers and sage
types throughout history, and you seem to have missed most all of
them. I won't bore you with a list, but you can start late with
Socrates and move on up short to Russell. I find "strong
attachments" to be the rule across all ages as well.

David Quinn: I dare say those elderly sages that you mentioned had
started on the philosophic path very early on in life. You can't
just miraculously jump from being an ordinary person to a sage in
a short space of time, especially if you are middle-aged. You
have to start the process when you are young, so that you can
grow naturally into it. If you try to bend a middle-aged tree, it
snaps.

Non Sum: You failed to make this distinction in your earlier
comment.

I The Master: You make a very interesting point about those tension-filled
clashes, David. You got me thinking about it. It seems that those
clashes occur even if you don't directly interact with someone,
the tension is already there, as if people, virtually anyone, can
sense something different about you, and it threatens them. Would
you agree with that, or is that awareness or perhaps neurosis
only in the mind of the beholder?

David Quinn: Most people can probably pick it up non-verbally. A
thinker tends to have an strong air of independence about him,
which people easily sense. The cold glint in the eye, the
thoughtful expression, the relaxed posture, the lack of
grovelling towards others - all this creates an impression that
this person is anti-social, lofty and unconventional. You can't
hide your true thoughts, no matter how much you try. They tend to
permeate your entire body.

I The Master: Also, is there any hope for those who have become
firmly attached to false ideals, to change? What is the best way
to get through to them? They always seem more inclined to believe
the lies of the many than the truths of the few, in their view
the value of a belief rests entirely on the prevalence of it.

David Quinn: That is the million dollar question! It depends on the
situation. Most people are so firmly entrenched in their
falseness that they would need a big shock to their world-view
before they can become receptive to wise thought. In some cases,
you can facilitate this by making outrageous statements that
offends them so much that everything suddenly seems upside-down
to them. But you need to do this skilfully. Backing up outrageous
statements with iron-clad reasoning can be very effective.
However, with many people even this is not enough, for they are
just too close-minded. There is nothing can really do for these
people.

In other cases, simple philosophical discussion can serve as a
catalyst for their making mental breakthroughs. Or even them
merely observing how you live your life, or perform in certain
situations, can be very stimulating for them. It just depends.

Matthew Timpanelli: David, do you believe solitude to be a good way to find
the path to truth more clearly.

I always felt that if I hadn't been so comfortable being alone
that most of my thoughts about truth would have gone unrecognized
by myself. Like if I have a long term relationship, I would
always have my mind on my girlfriend and our relationship rather
than thoughts about myself and my nature and the nature of things.

I watched a short film called "Thirty-Two shorts" about
canadian pianist Glen Gould. A main theme in the movie was
solitude, why is it that the more intelligent people prefer to
live a life of solitude, is it this idea of egotism that I
discussed in the ego and genius thread. I always felt that people
like Issac Newton who were so intelligent and able to see so much
in the world around them just wound up being unable to be social
beings, more or less because no one understands them. Why is it
that people like Newton and Gould are so intelligent yet can not
be comfortable with reality and are unable to escape their
egotistical nature?

Non Sum: I am all for "solitude," but that may be my
own person bias based on my own taste for it. The best rule is to
follow your own nature, as it is your only path home to your Self.
If you feel drawn to solitude, then that's the way for you.

I saw the movie "Thirty-Two Shorts" as well, very good.
Gould was "extremely eccentric" to say the least, and
this in itself must have had some bearing on his forced
reclusiveness. It may be that the common run of folks tends to
bore and fatigue, rather than solitude being such a draw in
itself. After awhile, one even developes a taste for it.

I remember watching how poorly most took to being thrown back on
themselves while in solitary confinement. It was an actual
'torture' to them, for lack of acclimatization and inner
resources. I was kept in solitary longer than any of the others,
but to me solitude was an old friend and so I thrived. I got the
nickname "The ghost" from the pallor gained from my
prolonged, and
preferred, seclusion.

"I am never bored anywhere; being bored is an insult to
oneself." (Jules Renard)

WolfsonJakk: I also saw that film. There is really no need for
community if you understand your place in the Universe. Most
people are petty out of ignorance. In the distant past, this
emotional understanding would have doomed our species, but now it
may provide a modicum of emotional peace for certain individuals
who would not have otherwise pondered it.

If all humans accepted the irrelevancies of community and the
pursuit of material gain, certain individuals would no longer be
able to live of the fat of this phenomenon of economy (i.e.
collect their welfare checks) and would have to kill/grow their
food. If globally adopted, this situation opens up a whole slew
of difficulties for a small planet with more than 6 billion
solitary, large mammal predators. There would be a wide-scale
slaughter of humans by humans in order for the population to
reach a self-supporting number. It would be the intelligent that
survived...especially the intelligent cannibals. :)

The cream rises to the top. It is a law of physics. The fruits of
labor by petty, unenlightened individuals are necessary at this
time for the effective development of the enlightened, but their
company is not.

Shardrol: Are you enlightened?

WolfsonJakk: No. I believe I am on the right path though. I see
enlightenment as a process. Also, enlightenment can come in
degrees. The intellectual component can come suddenly, but often
the emotional component does not cooperate so quickly. I still
have ego.

Dan Rowden: One of the more significant requirements for
philosophic thinking is the ability to calm the mind and allow
reason to flow uninhibited. Meditation, one might call it. For
some people an environment which is secluded and minimises
distraction may be necessary; for others this may be less so -
they may be able to achieve this stillness of mind in most any
circumstance. History is littered with examples of those who have
adopted a solitary existence for the purpose of creativity.
That's no big mystery. Their solitary existence is merely a
practical means to a creative end.

But there's a difference between a life led in physical removal
from the world and one led in mental removal from the world. The
truly solitary soul is one which can move within the world and
yet not be drawn into its mentality. This is where the notion of
"attachment" is so important. A life led in self-imposed
"solitary confinement" can certainly lessen the chances
of certain attachments being expressed in a more gross and overt
way, but it doesn't get rid of the attachment itself. The idea,
say, that ascetic monks of either Christian or Buddhist
persuasion free themselves (or will free themselves) from their
attachments to something like sexual desire, merely on the basis
of their having distanced themselves from the physical, practical
source of that desire, is seriously misguided. At some point the
thinker must face the demons of his attachments - those things
which inhibit and tie down the freedom of his mind; those things
which constrain the mind like the clipping of a bird's wings.

One has to be a solitary being, in one sense, to be an individual
and allow the mind to express itself, but this needn't entail
physical removal from society or any given environment, as that
can often be nothing more than artifice. One has to come to value
that individual mind very, very highly, and in that valuing the
seeds of the solitary life are sewn.

As to the question of why some people achieve higher levels of
awareness than others, and what might set them on that path more
than others, there are probably a few important factors, such as
a natural propensity for masculinity of mind, a relatively
independent childhood, certain events which occur in one's life
and cause paradigm shifts in one's perspectives, exposure to the
right kind of intellectual simulation etc etc. However, I think
the most cogent response to that question, however inadequate or
platitudinous it may seem to some, is simply: different karma.

Matthew Timpanelli: I agree totally, that was actually what I was looking
for, So in cases like Issac Newton and Glen Gould, they were only
comfortable with their physical detachment from society. Perhaps
if they hadn't detached themselves, they might not have achieved
so much.

I guess this is the distinction then from a genius and an
intelligent being. The genius can be genius inside or outside of
society. The intelligent being can only accomplish their genius
detached from society. I think this idea of attachment is very
important. The totally unattached person is enlightened, and is
the true self.

Shardrol: What do you mean by karma, Dan?

Dan Rowden: In this instance, just the totality of causes that have
made us who and what we are at any given time. When we attempt to
model which of these may be more significant than others, or
which are the most significant, we can only ever speculate. I
have some clues as to which events in my life, for example, have
influenced me the most, but I can't be sure of any of it, such
that I could construct any kind of hierarchy or order of import.

I The Master: Would that be karma from a previous life, or based on
what you have done in this life?

Dan Rowden: That's a slippery question. It all rests on how those
terms are being defined and conceived of. I don't hold to the
idea of literal reincarnation (transmigration). For me, our
"past lives" are our causes and our "future lives"
our effects. So, I'm certainly not talking about karma in the
sense of reaping the rewards or otherwise of deeds from past
lives - in the way that is normally understood.

I The Master: Is it fair to say that no matter what mistakes or wrong
decisions you make in life, if your karma is good you will end up
where you are supposed to be, regardless of any self-sabotage?

Dan Rowden: No, I don't think it's "fair", or more to the
point, accurate to say that. And there is no such thing as a
"where you're supposed to be". That kind of idea
implies some sort of cosmic consciousness, a cosmic mind
directing the fate of everything. In truth, there is only cause
and effect. There's a difference between determinism and
predestination - the former is a reasonable idea; the latter, not.

I The Master: So you would deny that some kind of consciousness would
lead me to this forum, to glean new kinds of information? It was
purely an accident, no other forces involved?

Dan Rowden: No, I wouldn't deny a form of consciousness led you
here. Yours did, didn't it? I wouldn't even deny the possibility
that a form of consciousness that controls you exists and brought
you here (e.g. some kind of alien lifeform providing
entertainment for their kiddies - or, in the case of many men,
their wives); what I'm denying is that Nature expresses any
purposeful consciousness.

However, your being here is certainly not an "accident".
Accidents don't really exist in the sense that everything is
caused. Your being here is determined but not predestined. The
latter term usually indicates the idea of a purposeful
consciousness at work. Nature (causality) is not like that.

I The Master: What is the balance of karma in the world, it would
seem there is a lot more bad than good, why is this?

Dan Rowden: Is there really a lot more bad than good in the world?
From what perspective? I mean, I agree that there is and the
reason for that is ignorance and delusion, but that judgment
arises relative to my own values and goals and has no objective
reality. From Nature's point of view, there is no good or bad -
things just are.

Of course, that fact doesn't insubstantiate my perspective and
judgments in any way, since they just are as well.

Chris Saik: Discuss the following: "It is
delusional to assert that we are more than the sum of our parts."

Non Sum: Isn't this a truism? The concept of a
"gestalt," seems to operate all around us, all of the
time. Why would "we" be the exception to this general
rule? On the physical level, we are organisms--who would assert
that any organism is just 'a bag of organs', or brains just 'a
collection of neurons'?

Dan Rowden: I'm not even sure I know what the
phrase intends. I would say that we are not more than the sum of
our parts, on the basis that what the sum of our parts generates
(e.g. consciousness) is part of who and what we are.

Dissemble or rearrange those parts and we lose certain generated
phenomena and gain others. If a certain arrangement of parts
generates certain effects, are those effects not part of what
that arrangement is?

Matthew Timpanelli: I believe that we are alot more than
the sum of our parts. We are flesh and bone and air and space, we
are you and you are I. A part of me has reached out to you and
you to I, so I am not a part of your sum, etc....

LiberalPuppet: I also believe that we are more than
the sum of our parts. If you were to dissect us chemical by
chemical the total value of these now useless parts would be
about $3.50. I personally think that thought and emotion and
conscious being is worth an immeasurable amount more than the sum
of our parts. Our emergent property (thought) is an ability that
only we humans possess (as far as we know). If you were to
rearrange us (in a physical sense chop up our bodies and put them
together in different ways) we would indeed lose our ability to
think and our ability to be. This question then borders on
whether there is something out there after this physical
existence and whether we are "imbued" with the gift of
being with cannot be destroyed by something in this physical
world that we've let ourselves believe in.

David Quinn: We're essentially no different to a car.
In one sense, a car is no more than the sum of its parts because
no matter how you rearrange the parts, nothing materially new is
ever created. On the other hand, it's only when the parts are
assembled correctly that the car can actually function properly
as a cohesive unit. So in that sense, something new has been
created.

The fact that no two thinker's circumstances and
brains are alike doesn't necessarily mean that every thinker's
truths are different. Logic is still logic and is
applicable to all mental realms. This is why someone
like myself who is a 21st century Australian can come to the same
primal truths as Lao Tzu, an ancient Chinese man, or Najarjuna, a
1st century Indian, or Kierkegaard, a nineteenth century Dane.
We are all different and yet our truths are exactly the
same. David Quinn

The Totality is infinite by virtue of the fact
that nothing can exist outside of it to bind or finitize it (as
it necessarily includes utterly everything). There is
no point where The Totality ends and something else begins. It
is non-finite. As to what specific forms actually
exist inside the Totality - for example, whether there are
infinite dimensions or many worlds, etc - that is a scientific
question. David
Quinn

Mankind has only one problem, and that is we
believe the artificial is adequate. We mistakenly believe
that our approach and philosophies of life will reap the peaceful
and prosperous benefits we all seek. We believe that
something other than the genuine Truth, some approximation, will
serve humanity well enough. We have lost the skill to sense
subtle changes and effects and consequently have come to believe
our best ideas are adequate substitutes for God, or ultimate
Truth, or any other genuine article. Leo Bartoli

By its nature, conscious knowing cannot know
every single detail of the Universe. This is because the act of
consciously knowing something is necessarily a finite activity,
which involves a process of blocking out, in each moment,
everything in the Universe that the mind is not focusing upon.
Without this blocking out process, there could be no mental focus
and no conscious knowing. David
Quinn

The purpose of studying philosophy is to learn
to think. Philosophy teaches one to think; to think rationally.
It is not the purpose of philosophy to teach one to emote. I
think that we are born knowing how to emote; and it is the
feminine nature of man that supports and nourishes emotion.
Everyone does it. It is emotion that causes such storms around
the ego that prevent the species of man from obtaining, at the
least, desire to overreach itself; to evolve. Thinking is a
discipline more than a natural disposition. It is the ability to
think that differentiates human from animal and it is conscious
refinement and exercise of thought that separates what is merely
human from Godliness.

I think it is the placement of value on emotion that
differentiates myself from others. I may yet experience the
remnants of emotion from time to time but I place no value
whatsoever on such experience. It is inevitable that one ceases
to experience what one does not value. When I was a child, I
valued emotional comfort and I sought comfort -- to be held and
rocked and petted. As an independent adult human being, I place
no value on such comfort. I don't require it in any form. In
fact, the thought of it disgusts me. Affection, adult to adult,
is degrading. It astonishes me how many so called adults live for
affection. They crave it and will do anything to get it. Such
emotional want makes of man a slave; stunts him; spiritually
aborts him; keeps him in a childlike state. Marsha Faizi

Emotions are not reasons. The woman who throws
her infant against the wall could use emotion as an excuse for
her act -- "I was feeling so down and he was crying and I
could not shush him. I was feeling so tired that I got real mad
and I threw him."

Not very subtly, this is an illustration of what emotion can do.
Emotions are irrational. It is emotion that causes one to get
married and have children. Marriage is not a rational act. Love
causes one to waste innumerable hours in egotistical desire for
another person or, rather, to waste time in desire for the
figment of one's imagination. Love, as much as hate, is a factor
in murder. Murder is an irrational act that stems from emotion.
Suicide is an irrational act that stems from emotion.

If anything, it is emotion that instills apathy. One who is
caught up in his emotions is most apathetic because he is self-centered.
Emotions revolve around self; the egotistical self -- the "I
wants" and "I must haves." Nothing else matters
but satisfaction of self.

"I cry because I am lonely" is a completely apathetic
statement. Even "I am sad because there are starving people
in the world" is a statement of apathy. Conversely, "I
am happy because I won the lottery" is also an apathetic
statement. Such states of emotion effect nothing; accomplish
nothing. They are nothing more than whirlwinds around the ego;
blow-hard storms; dramas. Marsha
Faizi

The trouble with discussing reality with most
people, is that they don't believe that Truth can be discerned,
thus they immediately scoff at the idea and never give it real
thought. They are afraid to test themselves. They are comfortable
with the lies. This would be unbearable for anyone with a
conscience.

Where are the wise ones? Where are those who possess a fearless
intellect? Where are those who can give up joy and pain and veer
off of the endless path to face the dead end?

Instead of letting the warrior engage in final combat, the
general is content to watch from a distance, and throw barbed
words in an attempt to drive the conquering force of Truth away.

Instead of allowing the poison to kill the enemy, they offer the
enemy a weak antidote that keeps them alive a bit longer, to
continue the fight another day. For without the never-ending
battle to keep them occupied, they would be lost.

It would be frustrating for one of Truth to watch this battle
played out again and again, without much result. Yet, here and
there, a warrior gradually comes to his senses and throws down
his spears.

Of what real relevance is God? Would your life change
dramatically if it were proven that God does not exist, that you
were a grain of sand falling through time towards your death?

What is it within you that fights for life? Why not fight for
death? What is the difference between illusion and reality?

The illusion of
authority, or even the delusion or error of agreement
without basis can be serious pitfalls for the thinker. It is
imperative that at all times he holds fast to the fact of the
auhority of his own reason in all matters. Agreement without
understanding is as erroneous as disagreement and should be
avoided at all cost. Agreement and disagreement mean nothing in
themselves. Without a personal understanding of Reality,
expressions of either are necessarily expressions of delusion.

I The Master: I notice an awful lot of the talk here is around the
subject of who is deluded, and who is not. Well, I will state my
impression up front and say that Dan, David and Marsha are
definitely not delusional. A few others are borderline, and a few
others again are really misguided.

WolfsonJakk: I am curious of the motivation behind this statement.
With your first post here, is it an attempt to draw up sides with
yourself well placed on the side you prefer? Or is it a
defensive, pre-emptive statement?

I The Master: Actually a bit of both. I think Dan and David are very
wise, I'm most interested in what they say, and I don't see the
point of not acknowledging that. I'm not really taking sides
though, I don't want conflict.

I think you and several others here have some interesting points
too, but it doesn't contain the consistency of truth that you
find in what Dan and David post.

Dan Rowden: I'd be very careful here. Consistency, on its own,
doesn't mean much. Even idiotic fanatics can be consistent in
their own way. But when you say "consistency of truth"
I can't help but wonder the basis upon which you judge what we
say to in fact be "truth".

I The Master: Well, that's a bit disappointing. I thought you would
have uphold the truth, and defended what you are saying, rather
than attack someone who is in actual agreement with you.

Why would you question the validity of what you are saying?
Surely you know it to be true. Why would you need validation from
a mere prole such as myself?

Dan Rowden: I don't, of course. I am asking why you think what I'm
saying is true. I know quite well it is, but I want to know why
you think it is.

I'm not attacking you; I'm asking the basis upon which you have
reached that agreement. I'm not interested in people agreeing
with me unless it's for the right reasons and the only "right"
reason is their own personal understanding. I'm simply warning
you against the lure of the illusion of authority. It's one of
the most important things any person can learn.

It's great if what I say resonates with you, but I'm not in the
guru business and you'll find that I am, at times, more strident
with those that say they agree with me than those that say they
disagree. Hopefully, you'll understand the reasons for that.

Nature is everything, by definition, so it cannot exist
"in" time and space, because time and space are a part
of Nature. It would be a silly idea to stipulate that there are
things outside of Nature, because that would destroy the
usefulness of the concept of
Nature, which, normally, is meant to signify everything.

Mike: The usefulness of the concept of nature
is that it defines that which is distinct from the divine.

Kevin Solway: But Nature is not in any way distinct
from the divine, and there is no reason to pretend that it is. We
can do science perfectly well in the full knowledge that Nature
is The Unlimited and The Totality. As I say it is nonsensical to
exclude particular things from Nature. It would be like saying
"Nature is everything except this coffee-cup". It has
minimal use, and ruins a perfectly good concept.

Sub-categories are useful for
doing Science, but Nature is not one of them. For example, the
matter which is directly associated with our presumed "big-bang"
("big" relative to us, but possibly minuscule relative
to someone else) should be called something like a "matter-bubble",
or a cosmatom (cosmic atom) or suchlike, because there is no
chance whatsoever that it is the Universe, which, by definition,
is all that is.

Disclaimer:
editorial opinions expressed in this publication are
those of its authors and do not, necessarily, reflect the
views of subscribers to Genius-L or Genius Forum. Dialogues adapted from Genius-L and Genius
Forum have been edited for the purpose of brevity and clarity.
Certain spelling mistakes and typographical errors have been corrected
to preserve meaning.